Home > Apologetics, Fundamentalism, Misc > Introduction to Fundamentalist Apologetics

Introduction to Fundamentalist Apologetics

Dr. Mike Johnston, Editor


The term “fundamentalist” is a relative one, like “conservative” or “liberal.” As it applies to organizations and denominations, “fundamentalists” would define those who hold to original doctrines and convictions and standards of a move-ment. This means that at the beginning of a movement all of its adherents would be fundamentalists. However, movements change. Denominations change. As they do, those who hold to the original doctrines and convictions fight for their preservation and for the return of the movement to its fundamentals. History tells us that these attempts have failed. Finally realizing that their hopes are futile, a group will pull out of the original movement or denomination and organize another according to the original dogma, standards and convictions of the apostate group. When this happens, the new group can be labeled “fundamentalists.” Hence, to be a fundamental Methodist would not be the same thing as to be a fundamental Presbyterian. To be a fundamental Baptist would not be the same thing as to be a fundamental Episcopalian. The im-portant thing to note here is that the term “fundamentalist” is one that has been given to those who pull out and return to the original intents, purposes and doc-trine of the group that they feel has gone liberal. -Dr. Jack Hyles

Distance seminary level training available in Bible, Ministry, Religious Ed, and Theology. Request entrance course info.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3).

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)

Dr. Mike Johnston, Editor  


Copyright © 2012 by Dr. Mike Johnston All rights reserved.

You may FREELY copy, quote, and distribute the material enclosed, if you pro-vide credit for this work when doing so.

Published by

PMI Center for Biblical Studies

POB 177 Battle Creek, MI 49016-0177


All Scripture quotations are taken from the King James Version of the Holy Bible unless noted when directly quoting and refuting another source.

Works for Hebrew and Greek Word Clarification:

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance by

James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., 1890

(as found in e-Sword® Version 7.8.5 © 2000-2007

Rick Meyers All Rights Reserved Worldwide)

We also publish and distribute dozens of doctrinally sound tracts and pam-phlets specially suited for prison ministry. Chaplains and/or prison ministry workers may write for a Prison Ministry Tract Pack.

Bible students interested in college and seminary level degree studies in Bible, Ministry, Prophecy, Religious Education, and Theology, may request application information.

Table of Contents

Introduction to Fundamentalism.. 2

What is a Fundamentalist. 5

Historic Fundamentalism.. 13

Biblical Separation In The Last Days. 18


Introduction to Fundamentalism

Dr. Mike Johnston

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3).

Let’s be honest! Fundamentalism isn’t an easy- nor is it a popular- position. It is, however necessary in these final days of the church age. Fundamentalism is the theological antithesis of liberalism, modernism, and ecumenism- all pre-dominantly featured in the apostate Laodicean Church (Rev. 3:14-22).

Fundamentalists deal with hard questions others either ignore or run from. For instance, where do we draw the line between what is truth and what is tolera-ble? Are we to fellowship with everyone who claims Christ as Saviour and Lord? What about Mormons, SDAs, New Agers, Unitarians and Universalists? How about those who deny the virgin birth, or the inerrancy of Scripture, or endorse sodomy, or refuse to speak against the killing of the unborn? The fact is, the theology of Fundamentalism has always been divisive, distinguished by bold Biblical assertions- from some of God’s bravest men- that not only defined the issues, but provided sound doctrinal teaching which serves as a measure of fel-lowship for churches and believers of all ages.

The Origin of Fundamentalism

As a movement, Fundamentalism began in 1909 with Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary debating whether or not to ordain 3 men who refused to affirm the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. This led to a series of doctrinal debates where godless attacks on the Bible that had been poisoning European and American Bible colleges since the 18th century were exposed, examined, and expunged.

The term “Fundamentalism” arose from this conflict and dates back to 1920 where it was first coined by Baptist editor Curtis Laws in the Watchman-Examiner. Unlike liberals of today who besmirch the term, Laws used Funda-mentalist in a respectful manner to describe adherents to a twelve volume theo-logical treatise refuting liberalism. The project was financed by dispensationalist Lyman Stewart and sent to 3000 preachers and Bible teachers between 1910 and 1915. It contained ninety doctrinal theses from 64 authors addressing five important subjects that collectively became known as The Fundamentals:

  • Inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture
  • Virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
  • Christ’s sacrificial atonement for sin
  • Literal bodily resurrection of Christ
  • Historical reality of Christ’s miracles

As we examine the five major issues that confronted 19th and early 20th century theologians, we wish to draw attention to two very important truths:

First, liberalism is like leaven that when ignored leaveneth the whole lump. These men saw what was happening and rose to the occasion by addressing the heresies with necessary, non-negotiable truths. The five fundamentals they es-tablished not only defined their movement, but the men, and the ministries that were willing to stand against liberalism by promoting them.

Second, the heresies they faced then, not only didn’t disappear, they have leav-ened into teachings that are more egregious. Seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (1 Tim. 4:1) have repackaged occult blasphemy as new revelation and new moves of God by capitalizing on an inability of most Christians to discern between the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error (1 John 4:6). I believe much of this is the result of a four decade glut of Laodicean “Bible” translations   flooding into the church missing hundreds of verses that either teach or rein-force some vital doctrinal truths.

The Lord Jesus warned about deceivers capable of fooling the elect (Matt. 24:24). It is most noteworthy that many of today’s false teachers wholeheartedly affirm the original five fundamentals. Jude warns: Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ (Jude 1:3-4).

I believe- and I’m not alone in this- there are many reasons why we must stand stronger than ever for conservative Biblical Fundamentalism. I’ll now explain to you why I am an unapologetic Fundamentalist.

Why I am a Fundamentalist

Lift up a standard for the people (Isaiah 62:10).

I am an unapologetic Fundamentalist for several reasons. I was introduced to it in the early 1980’s while completing my Bible college and seminary training. During that time, I subscribed to and devoured both the Sword of the Lord and Fundamentalist Journal.   The decade of the 80s was a time of unprecedented growth in political and religious conservatism which ultimately led to the elec-tion of Ronald Reagan as President. Soon after his inauguration the Christian school movement surfaced to siphon off several hundred thousand children and tens of millions of educational dollars used for purposes of humanistic social engineering. As you might expect, this conservative sleeping giant threatened the previously uncontested liberal power base and thus became the object of their incessant attacks using lies cleverly linking fundamentalists to terrorists that blow up buildings, shoot abortionists, and hijack airplanes- a tactic they shamelessly still employ today.

I am a Fundamentalist because Fundamentalism is an enemy of Laodicean li-berology aka liberalism. As it was from the beginning, it is still a Biblically con-servative repudiation of the social and religious modernism pervading the world and the church in these last days. While liberals would like us to believe America is a secular humanist experiment, the truth of history reveals America began as a Christian nation.   In fact, the first colonial grant was given to Sir Walter Raleigh, authorizing him to establish government and statutes for the proposed colony in America with the following stipulation. It read: “…they be not against the true Christian faith…” Does that sound secular to you? Every colony required membership in a Christian church as a prerequisite for holding public office.

It was faith and commitment to the Lord Jesus that first motivated colonists to open schools to teach their children how to read the Bible. Shortly after they founded colleges to train pastors and missionaries to evangelize the Atlantic Seaboard. The first was Harvard which was established through a congressional act in 1638, followed by Yale (1701), Princeton (1746), Dartmouth (1754), and many others. Harvard’s 1646 “Rules and Precepts” enrollment requirement gives us a picture of the spiritual climate at that time: “Every one shall consider the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.”So what happened to this bastion of Spirit sensitive institutions? Little by little they fell prey to the cancer of compromise and allowed liberals to attend, teach, and rule over them. And how have Christians responded to this ungodly movement? They pay the tuitions, attend the schools, drink the kool aid, and graduate with degrees   equipping them to devote their lives to attacking the Christian values their alma maters were all founded upon. Be it the Constitution of the United States or the inerrant Word of the Living God, liberals are opposed to immutable truth just as Satan was in the Garden when he questioned Eve’s knowledge of God’s Word while impugning God’s authority by asking: “Yea, hath God said?” (Gen. 3:1).

I am a Fundamentalist because Fundamentalism is an enemy of the apostasy being popularized by Laodicean leaders.   Satan lusts to be God and his plan is being optimized through a mass departure from truth. Jesus warned of a coming deception by deceivers (Matt. 24). So did Peter (2 Pet. 2:1-3), as did Jude (Jude’s Book). Paul labeled it a great falling away (2 Thess. 2:3) and linked it to the mystery of iniquity and a coming spiritual delusion designed to entrap phony believers: Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived (2 Timothy 3:13).  I won’t cover all this ground again since much of it has been dealt with in my books Last Days False Prophets and The Latter Rain Manifest Sons of God Heresy. (you may request copies FREE)

I am a Fundamentalist because Fundamentalism is an enemy of corrupt manu-scripts used to translate corrupt Bibles. Since faith cometh by hearing . . . the Word (Rom. 10:17), Satan’s strategy has been to remove the Word. This was partially accomplished in the decade of the 60s when prayer and Bible reading were deemed “unconstitutional” and removed from public school. However, there were still millions clinging to doctrinal truths the devil couldn’t combat. Inundating the church with conflicting and often contradictory Bible transla-tions developed from Romanist manuscripts missing hundreds of verses has been ingenious. New Christians are generally given these modern translations under the guise that the King James Bible   is archaic and too difficult to under-stand. Since new Christians have never been taught the doctrinal distinctives found in the past 400 years of using the Authorized King James Bible, they are willing operatives in the Laodicean attack against King James Fundamentalists and the doctrines we stand for.

In closing, let me remind you that from the beginning it’s been Satan’s liberals that have pushed “new, better, modern” translations. The Laodicean Church features every modern version of the Bible on the market and Laodicean pastors use any number of them in their pulpits. These translations are contemptible and contradictory regarding the five fundamentals. This confusion has led many into spiritual rebellion from which they will never escape. Sadly, one day Scrip-ture tells us these apostates will all line up in a concerted worship of their blas-phemous leaders, Satan’s Antichrist and his false prophet (2 Thess. 2; Rev. 13-18)! My friend, we must never lose sight of the fact that Satan’s greatest ploy is to make God’s truth appear unpopular. If you doubt what I just said, begin tell-ing others you are a King James Bible believing Fundamentalist and wait for the epithets.


What is a Fundamentalist

Dr. Jack Hyles

The term “fundamentalist” is a relative one, like “conservative” or “liberal.” As it applies to organizations and denominations, “fundamentalists” would define those who hold to original doctrines and convictions and standards of a move-ment. This means that at the beginning of a movement all of its adherents would be fundamentalists. However, movements change. Denominations change. As they do, those who hold to the original doctrines and convictions fight for their preservation and for the return of the movement to its fundamentals. History tells us that these attempts have failed. Finally realizing that their hopes are futile, a group will pull out of the original movement or denomination and organize another according to the original dogma, standards and convictions of the apostate group. When this happens, the new group can be labeled “fundamentalists.” Hence, to be a fundamental Methodist would not be the same thing as to be a fundamental Presbyterian. To be a fundamental Baptist would not be the same thing as to be a fundamental Episcopalian. The im-portant thing to note here is that the term “fundamentalist” is one that has been given to those who pull out and return to the original intents, purposes and doc-trine of the group that they feel has gone liberal.

There are some Methodists who feel that the mainline Methodist denomination have departed from the position of its founding fathers. These may be called fundamental Methodists. The same thing is true with the Presbyterian denomi-nation. The American Baptist Convention, Southern Baptist Convention and other groups such as the General Association of Regular Baptists, the Baptist Bible Fellowship, World Bible Fellowship, the Conservative Baptist Fellowship, Bible Presbyterians, Wesleyan Methodists and the Southwide Baptist Fellow-ship might be included in this category. If and when any of these organizations or movements shows signs of decay, there will be those who will withdraw and go back to what they believe are the original doctrines, purposes and convictions of the mother group. Then they will become fundamentalists also. This means that the term “fundamentalist” usually defines a movement rather than a position.

It is rather popular to define the term “fundamentalist” as one who believes the fundamentals; for example, one who believes the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the vicarious death, the bodily resurrection and the second coming. Now, to be sure, such a one believes the fundamentals, but the term “fundamentalist” probably should not be ascribed to him if he is still a member of an apostate denomination. The term “fundamentalist” is given not to those who simply believe the aforementioned fundamentals but to those who have separated themselves from those who do not. This brings the doctrine of separation into focus as a vital and necessary part of being a fundamentalist. This author, for example, could not call a member of the American Baptist Con-vention who believes the verbal inspiration, the deity of Christ, virgin birth, the vicarious death, the bodily resurrection and the second coming of Christ a fun-damentalist, nor could he call a Southern Baptist who believes the fundamental doctrines a fundamentalist. I certainly feel kindly toward men who believe these doctrines who are still in their denominations. I admire their stand and appre-ciate their fight for the Bible. I am pleased with their evangelistic zeal, and I gladly call them Christian brothers, but in no way could I associate the term “fundamentalist” with them, and I could not do so until they severed their yoke with the movement which is departing from the faith. If just believing the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the vicarious death, the bodily resurrection and the second coming of Christ makes one a funda-mentalist, then many who are yoked up with apostate denominations would be classified as fundamentalists.

There are several interesting things about the Old Testament law of separation for Israel.

  1. They were not allowed to sow different seeds together. Deuteronomy 22:9, “Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.”
  1. They were not allowed to plow with an ox and an ass in the same yoke. Deu-teronomy 22:10, “Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.”
  1. They were not allowed to wear a garment with different materials such as wool and linen in the same garment. Deuteronomy 22:11, “Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.”

In the Bible, seed is a type of the Word of God. Psalm 126:6, “He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.” Luke 8:11, “Now the parable is this: The seed is the Word of God.” The spiritual teaching is that we should not mix the Bible with other seed. The Bible is not one of God’s books, it is THE Word of God! There is a special judgment on those who add to the seed. Revelation 22:18, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.”

A garment in the Bible is a type of salvation. Adam and Eve, as soon as they had sinned, tried to cover their nakedness. Genesis 3:7, “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” Their own efforts failed, and God cov-ered their nakedness with the skins taken from a slain animal. Genesis 3:21, “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” The Apostle John reminds us that the linen garments worn by the redeemed are symbolic of righteousness. Revelation 19:8, “And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” This means that it is an abomination when anyone adds anything to salvation apart from faith in the finished work of Cal-vary. It is not salvation by faith plus baptism, it is not salvation by faith plus communion, it is not salvation by faith plus confirmation, it is not salvation by faith plus the sacraments, it is not salvation by faith plus good works. This is mixing material in the garment of salvation. The song writer put it well when he said, “I gave Him my old tattered garments; He gave me a robe of pure white.” The robe of salvation is made by God Himself and is given to all who realize their sinful condition, who realize they are under the condemnation of God, who believe that Jesus has paid the penalty for their sins and by faith receive Christ as Saviour and His payment on the cross as full payment for sin.

Now we come to the yoking of an ox and an ass together. An ox in the Bible is symbolic of the man of God. Deuteronomy 25:4, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.” I Timothy 5:17, 18, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.” In I Timothy 5:17, the word “elder” is a synonym for “pastor” or “man of God,” which means that the man of God should not be muzzled. Hence, the ox is symbolic of God’s man. I Corinthians 9:9, “For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?”

Just as the ox is symbolic of God’s man, the ass is symbolic of false prophets and apostates. God is saying to us that just as He does not want His Word diluted, and just as He does not want His plan of salvation diluted, He does not want the testimony of His servants diluted by their being in a yoke with unbelievers. II Corinthians 6:14-18, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what com-munion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” You will notice in verse 14 that a believer is not to be yoked up with an unbeliever. Righteousness is not to be yoked with unrighteousness, and light is not to be yoked with darkness. In verse 15 you will notice that we are not to yoke a believer with an infidel. In verse 16 we are forbidden to yoke the temple of God with idols. In verse 17 we are admonished to come out from among them. (This takes us back to the origin of the term “fundamentalist.”) God does not want His people yoked up with unbelievers. II Chronicles 19:2, “And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord.” Notice God’s attitude toward His man being in the same yoke with those who are not God’s people. When we do such a thing, we ourselves become enemies of God. James 4:4, “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” The Apostle Paul admonishes us that we are not to fellowship with darkness. Ephe-sians 5:11, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” We are taught in Psalm 1 that we should not walk in the counsel of the ungodly nor stand in the way of sinners nor sit in the seat of the scornful. Psalm 1:1-3, “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scorn-ful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in His law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” God teaches us very plainly that we are not to intermarry with unbelievers. Marriage is a yoke. When a Christian marries an unsaved person, he disobeys the command of God; he yokes a believer with an unbeliever; he yokes righteousness with unrighteousness; he yokes light with darkness.

In the day of Nehemiah when Jewish men married unsaved women, Nehemiah rebuked them. Nehemiah 13:23-27, “In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and curs-ed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?”

The downfall of Solomon was in marrying heathen women. I Kings 11:4-8, “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, and went not fully after the Lord, as did David his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.” Not only does this passage show Solomon’s downfall, but it shows how it happened. He married wives who wor-shipped heathen gods. Because of this, his heart was turned away from his own God, and he even built heathen places of worship. How tragic for a man who was so wise to be so foolish!

In Genesis 4:25, 26, we are told of the birth of Seth. “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.” Seth was a Christian man whom God gave to Eve and whose seed would replace the seed of Abel, who was killed by Cain. Seth had a son whose name was Enos, who also called upon the name of the Lord. However, Seth’s descendants began to intermarry with unsaved people. This led to wicked practices and finally to the judgment upon the earth by the flood. Basically this tragic judgment came because of God’s people intermarrying with those who were not God’s people. Genesis 6:1-7, “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.”

Lest some believer become carried away with a misguided zeal, God plainly in-structs the Christian who is ALREADY married to one not a Christian not to break his vows and not to leave the unbelieving mate. I Corinthians 7:10-16, “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife de-part from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” After the marriage is made, it is too late to prevent tragedy. The best thing to do is stay with the un-saved mate and live the kind of life that perhaps can atone for the sin of the marriage.

The Apostle Paul teaches us that widows may marry, but they can marry only Christian men. I Corinthians 7:39, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” Notice the words, “ONLY IN THE LORD.” In other words, when a woman’s husband is dead, she has a right to marry, but only in the Lord.

This yoke, however, pertains to more than marriage. A man of God should not yoke up with unbelievers in a ministerial association. He should not yoke up with unbelievers in a united evangelistic crusade. He should not yoke up with unbelievers in an Easter sunrise service, a Thanksgiving service or a Good Friday service. A man of God should not preach under the sponsorship of unbelievers. Immediately critics would say, “Well, I have heard that you have preached in taverns.” Yes, you heard correctly. I have preached in taverns, and there are conditions under which this is acceptable. Suppose, for example, that I get a letter from the local tavern keeper and he says, “Reverend, I would like for you to come and bring a Bible message to my customers at 3:00 on Good Friday.” So, at 3:00, I enter the tavern. The tavern keeper calls the people to attention and introduces me. He says, “Ladies and gentlemen, I have Reverend Hyles to speak for us today. He is Pastor of First Baptist Church, and I have asked him to come and bring a Good Friday message. I am happy to present to you Reverend Hyles.” If under those conditions I speak, I am appearing in a yoke with the tavern keeper. He and I are sponsoring the service. We are working together in the same yoke.

Now suppose I go to the same tavern some day and walk in and start preaching. I am not invited, and I warn the people against the sins of liquor and strong drink. The tavern keeper does not stop me, and I continue to preach. Everybody there knows I was not invited by the bartender or the owner. Everyone knows I came on my own. I was not sponsored by the wicked liquor traffic. I am there to oppose his business; I am there on my own; he did not know I was coming, and he did not invite me.

The Bible has more bad things to say about false teachers than about tavern keepers and bartenders. For that matter, the Bible has more to say about false teachers than it does about strong drink. If an unbelieving pastor invites me to speak for him and I accept, I am being sponsored by him, and he and I are in the same yoke in holding a service. This is unscriptural and something that is an abomination to God.

The argument is advanced, “But think how much good you could do if you preached in liberal churches.” It is best to let God decide how much good can be done. He has already decided this and on the basis of how much good can be done He has given us His commandments. Wise Christians will obey and trust the eternal judgment of an omniscient God rather then the reasoning of finite human minds.

Satan has always wanted to dilute the message of God through the unequal yoke. He asked his liberal prophets to extend a hand to the fundamental prophet so that they might work under the same yoke. The fundamentalists in general refused his offers, but the Devil was not through. If he could not get the funda-mentalists to join hands with the liberals, he called in another to join hands with the liberal and to offer his hand to the fundamentalist. This other was the neo-orthodox which means, “new orthodoxy.” This is the one who believes wrong but talks right. He talks about an inspired Bible, but he does not mean a verbally inspired Bible. He talks about a Heaven but not the one of the Bible. He talks about a hell that has no fire. He is liberal in his heart but is deceitful with his mouth. He joins hands with the liberal and then extends his hand to the fundamentalist. All the time Satan is trying to get the fundamentalist in the same camp with the liberal.

For the most part, however, this failed. The fundamentalist refused to join hands with the neo-orthodox, but Satan was not through. He then brought someone else into view. We call him the neo-evangelical. He is the one who be-lieves right but talks wrong. He is probably saved, believes the verbal inspiration and other fundamentals of the faith, but he is not willing to bear the reproach of Christ and the stigma of separation, so he joins hands with the neo-orthodox who has already joined hands with the liberal. He then offers his hand to the fundamentalist. Satan knows that if the fundamentalist can join hands with the neo-evangelical who has joined hands with the neo-orthodox who had joined hands with the liberal, then he will have the fundamentalist and the liberal in the same camp. How shrewd he is!

However, in most instances, he failed again. The fundamentalist refused the enticement of the neo-evangelical, but Satan is not finished yet. He must find a link that will join the fundamentalist with the liberal. Sad to say, he found that link. He placed a politician between those who joined hands with the neo-evangelical. He then offered his hand to the fundamentalist and gullibly the fundamentalist accepted! Now the fundamentalist joins hands with the politi-cian who joins hands with the neo-evangelical who has joined hands with the neo-orthodox who has joined hands with the liberal, and we find fundamental-ists, liberals, new-evangelicals and neo-orthodox joining together in the same yoke in order to get better men in office. Now we have Baptist preachers, Catholic preachers, liberal preachers and even cultists joining together in a common cause.

“But,” cries someone, “this is not a religious endeavor. This is a secular endeav-or.” The truth is, however, that everything is sacred to the man of God. It is also true that the more we are around evil and evildoers, the less sinful sin becomes. These false teachers are usually likable people, and once we learn to like them, their doctrine will not be quite so bad.

Another tragedy is what this yoke does to the following generations. When Ba-laam was asked to come to Moab, he refused to go. Later on he went and with him he carried the purity of the faith. He had broken down the wall between the heathen and God’s people. It wasn’t long until their children intermarried and God’s people were polluted through and through.

When Ahab was king of Israel (the northern kingdom), he had a wicked wife named Jezebel with whom he led the nation astray. The southern kingdom, however, was ruled by a good, godly man named Jehoshaphat. One day Ahab invited Jehoshaphat to enter into a nonreligious yoke with him. There was a parcel of land that was a very coveted possession that once belonged to Israel. Ahab suggested to Jehoshaphat that the two of them join together to take Ra-moth in Gilead back from the heathen. Now this was a secular endeavor. When they got together, Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram, happened to meet Ahab’s daughter, Athaliah. They fell in love and were married. So he took the daughter of Jezebel, who was a “little Jezebel,” back to the southern kingdom. Soon she polluted the southern kingdom just like her wicked mother, Jezebel, had pollut-ed the northern kingdom. This would not have happened if Ahab and Jehosha-phat had not entered into the same yoke. The problem here is that our children should not be exposed to heathen young people less they meet them, court them, love them and marry them. The Christian young man will just as likely want to date an unchristian young lady whom he meets at a political meeting as much as he would one whom he meets at a united Thanksgiving service.

When God’s people returned from Babylonian captivity to rebuild the wall and the temple at Jerusalem, enemies tried to thwart and hinder their work. They used many methods such as hatred, slander, ridicule, etc. Included in those methods was an offer to unite in the work. “Let us build with you,” they said, but God’s people refused to yoke up with them in this secular endeavor. Rebuilding the wall around the city was not a spiritual work but a secular one.

One never catches good health. If someone has hepatitis, he is not asked to get near someone who doesn’t have hepatitis in order that the healthy person may cure the diseased. You don’t cure mononucleosis by having someone with good health breathe on him. One hepatitis plus one non-hepatitis equals two hepati-tis. One mononucleosis plus one non-mononucleosis equals two mononucleosis. You don’t fall upward. No one falls and stumbles on the ceiling. The law of gravity is a downward pull. God’s people cannot associate with the unbelieving, Christ-rejecting world without being adversely influenced and finally contami-nated. This is why people who are in denominations which have gone liberal should withdraw and become fundamentalists. It is not believing right within the movement that makes one a fundamentalist; it is the withdrawal FROM the movement and returning to the original dogma, practices and convictions of the apostate group that gives one the title of fundamentalist. The basic difference is the degree of importance that one places on the doctrine of separation.

When I was a high school student, I attended the W. H. Adamson High School in Dallas, Texas. I once had a date with a girl who attended Woodrow Wilson High School in Dallas. Everything was fine until there was a football game be-tween our two schools! We agreed that during the first half of the game we would sit on the side of the field where the Adamson High School student body and fans sat; then for the last half, we would go across the field and sit with the student body and fans from Woodrow Wilson. For the first half all was well. I cheered loudly and courageously However, the last half posed a problem. The first time one of the players from my school made a good gain, I stood and screamed at the top of my voice. Then suddenly I realized I was the only one cheering ! The next time Adamson made a good play I remained seated and cheered softly. The next time I simply waved my hand in the air. The next time I silently said, “Rah, Rah!” I still believed in Adamson High School; I was still a student at Adamson High School, but my voice became silent, my testimony became nullified, and I would have not been classed as a loyal adherent to W. H. Adamson High School.

When the believer for any purpose sits side by side with the unbeliever, he will find his cheering for Jesus gets a bit quieter, his zeal is lessened, and soon his testimony will be silenced!


Historic Fundamentalism

Dr. Jack Hyles

The Catholic church had what we call a Reformation. The Reformation was when the Protestants (as we call them now) pulled out of Catholicism. The Reformation was not a spiritual revival. We have the mistaken idea that when Martin Luther pulled out of Catholicism there followed a great spiritual awak-ening and revival. Nothing could be further from the truth. In that day the church was associated with the state. Luther and Calvin were both trying to start another state church. Martin Luther did not believe in the separation of church and state. Neither did John Calvin.

Consider some facts about the Reformation

  1. The Reformation was not a spiritual revival.
  1. It was not a return to the New Testament church. Basically, it was a hatred for Catholicism. It was not started by a desire to return to something, but by a desire to leave Catholicism. In that day there were other groups besides the re-formers. For example, Zwingli’s position was not the same as Calvin’s, and Calvin’s was not the same as Luther’s. In fact, for part of their lives they were bitter enemies and never became close friends. They did have a common hatred for the Catholic church and wanted to start another state church.
  1. There was a third group of people in those days called the Anabaptists, which means rebaptizers. The Justinian Code from which we get most of the framework of our laws had a death penalty for rebaptizing people. That was the law of the state because the state and the church were one. The Anabaptists were hated by everybody. Zwingli hated them. So did Martin Luther and John Calvin. They agreed even with the Catholics in their hatred for the Anabaptists. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all either consented to, or encouraged the death and martyr-dom of Anabaptists.

There were three groups of Anabaptists. I will not go into much detail except to list and describe them briefly.

  1. One group of Anabaptists believed in building a local church according to the Word of God. The Anabaptists never believed in an invisible, universal church. They always believed in the local church. In fact, that is the one major thing that separated them, because Luther believed in the invisible church as did Calvin, Zwingli, and the Catholics. This group was like our Baptists are today. They be-lieved the Word of God was the final authority, and built their churches accord-ingly.
  1. The second group was called the Pietists. They got their “word” from within, in a message from Heaven, or ‘a word of knowledge,” if you please.
  1. The third group of Anabaptists was so militant that they wanted to take over the government and force everybody to be Anabaptists.

In every generation we have the same basic alignment of Christian people. I want to show you the alignment of Christian people in our day. Why do funda-mentalists not get along? Why do we not agree on so many things? There are different kinds of fundamentalists. The word fundamental means a group that returns to the original purpose. practice and doctrine of an institution. I am go-ing to take fundamentalism as we know it in America and show you why it is divided.

There are three basic fundamental groups in America. There is an American Baptist fundamentalism which came from the American Baptist Convention. There is a Protestant fundamentalism which came from the Protestant churches or denominations. It could also be called Reformation fundamentalism. Then, there is a Southern Baptist fundamentalism of churches which came from the Southern Baptist Convention. These are the three groups that form the body of what we call fundamentalism today.

These have basic disagreements which have caused an invisible fence to come between them. That invisible fence is becoming more visible all the time. Let me show you what I mean.

  1. American Baptist Fundamentalists

American Baptist fundamentalism comes from the old American Baptist de-nomination which was the original Baptist denomination in America. It was originally called the Northern Baptist Convention. There are two basic groups of people in American Baptist fundamentalism. First, there is the General Associa-tion of Regular Baptists, or GARB. They split off of the American Baptist Con-vention and formed a group. Then, the Conservative Baptist Association split off of the American Baptist Convention and formed another group. Dr. Bob Ketch-um was probably the most famous man in the GARB. Dr. Myron Cedarholm was probably the best known man in the Conservative Baptist Association. Both of these groups are splits from the Northern Baptist, or American Baptist Con-vention. Let me tell you more about these groups.

  1. They were first basically a northern movement.

You will seldom find a GARB church in the south, and you will seldom find a Conservative Baptist church in the south. Basically, these are northern groups.

  1. They pulled out mainly over doctrines. They did not leave many of the prac-tices of the American Baptist Convention. They did not change the church gov-ernment of the American Baptist Convention.
  1. They are also more formal than the Southern Baptist fundamentalists, or those who came from the Southern Baptist Convention.
  1. They are more highly organized than the other fundamentalist groups.
  1. Protestant Fundamentalism

Protestant fundamentalism is probably the most impressive of all fundamental-ism. These are the inter-denominational fundamentalists. They are Bible churches, or IFCA (Independent Fundamental Churches of America). They are not Baptist churches. They are Bible churches or have names like Church of the Open Door, Central Church, Fellowship Church or something similar to that. These are not bad people. They are good Christian people. They believe the Bible, but they came from the Protestant group, so they are Protestant fundamen-talists. That is why they usually believe in the invisible church. That is also why they are not called Baptists. Let me tell you more about these Protestant fun-damentalists.

  1. They look like Protestants, in the same way that Protestants look like Catho-lics. If you go to a Lutheran church next Sunday, you will have a hard time dis-cerning whether it is Catholic or Lutheran. They are Protestant. If you go to an Episcopalian church, you will have a hard time discerning whether it is Catholic or Episcopalian. I am not being critical. I am being factual. Lutheran preachers wear robes because they came out of Catholicism, but did not change everything. Why does a Presbyterian sprinkle babies? When they came out of Catholicism, that was not an issue. So they still in some ways look like the mother.
  1. They came from Reformation people.
  1. From them we get the doctrine of the invisible church.
  1. Basically, they are the result of the union revivals that were so popular many years ago in America. Many churches would go together for a revival campaign. From these revivals came people who were genuinely born again, but did not know anything about Baptist churches, Baptist polity, Baptist programs, or Baptist doctrine. These people started Bible churches, or inter-denominational churches. They are good fundamental people. They include men like H. A. Iron-side, R. A. Torrey, Dwight L. Moody, and Bob Jones. D. L. Moody was not a Baptist. He was a Congregationalist. Although he was a great preacher, he never belonged to the New Testament church.
  1. A. Ironside did not pastor a New Testament Baptist church. He pastored a church that came from Protestantism. These men deserve our admiration. They did not know anything else. They wanted something that was not Presbyterian, Reformed, Methodist, Episcopalian, or Lutheran. They wanted something that believed the Bible, so they came from their Protestant denominations and start-ed inter-denominationalism. They had a second Reformation.
  1. This was largely a northern movement. They are a little more in the south than the GARB or the Conservative Baptists, but basically it was a northern movement.
  1. It was also more formal. Individuals who came out of the Presbyterian church to start independent churches would obviously be more formal than those who came out of Baptist churches to start other Baptist churches.
  1. These are good people, but they did not build New Testament churches. New Testament churches must have pastors and deacons. They must believe in New Testament doctrine. Billy Sunday did not belong to the New Testament church because he belonged to a church that came from Protestantism. Billy Sunday was a Protestant. The same fundamental people who supported Billy Sunday’s meetings went back to their formal services on Sunday mornings. New Testa-ment churches did not come from Catholicism. They came from Jesus when He started the New Testament church Himself.

I am not criticizing these people, but they did not build New Testament church-es. They promoted the invisible church doctrine in addition to the local church doctrine. The only group of people in the history of Christianity that has pro-moted the local church doctrine has been Baptists.

III. Southern Baptist Fundamentalism

These are the groups that came out the Southern Baptist Convention. There are some great leaders of Southern Baptist fundamentalism. I am talking about men like J. Frank Norris, who started what is now the Baptist Bible Fellowship; Dr. Lee Roberson, who was basically responsible for the Southwide Baptist Fel-lowship; and Dr. G. B. Vick, who became famous by perpetuating the ministry that Dr. Norris started.

  1. This is where the action has been in fundamentalism. These people are a part of the big circle of fundamentalism, but we have some basic disagreements. There have been some invisible fences between us that are now rising up and becoming more visible. We did not build those fences. They started saying that we are shallow and too evangelistic. They started accusing us of promoting easy-believism. We have no choice but to say that they are wrong They criticize us because of our excitement and our informality. The action in fundamentalism in this generation has come from Southern Baptist fundamentalists, that is, those who left the Southern Baptist Convention and those they have influenced.
  1. The main issue of difference is on the matter of separation. The GARB and the American Baptists divided basically over doctrine. When Dr. J. Frank Norris pulled out of the Southern Baptist Convention, most Southern Baptist preachers believed that the Bible was the Word of God. The Bible was not issue in those days. It was an ecclesiastical issue, a type of worship issue, and a separation issue. They pulled out over mixed bathing being wrong. They pulled out over social drinking being wrong. They pulled out over teaching evolution. They pulled out over matters of separation, and matters of type worship.

Consequently, the hottest group in America over the last forty years consists of those that pulled out of the Southern Baptist Convention.

That forms the entire circumference of what we call fundamentalism. If you wonder why fundamentalists do not get along, it is because we are not all the same type of fundamentalists. When some American Baptist fundamentalists visit First Baptist Church in Hammond, they may think that we are too wild. That is because they still have some American Baptist left in them. They think we should have committees to run everything in the church. They are funda-mentalists in the sense that they became fed up with what they were in, but, they did not come out totally. They rebelled only against the things that irritated them.

* Pastor’s School Fundamentalists *

Today, there is another group of fundamentalists quietly becoming the largest group in the nation. I call this group the Pastors’ School fundamentalists. With-out anybody planning or organizing a thing, God raised up the Pastors’ School at the First Baptist Church of Hammond. Its annual meeting is larger than the Baptist Bible Fellowship annual convention. The Southwide Baptist Fellowship does not have as many preachers as Pastors’ School has every year. Preachers from all over this country who want to do something for God have come to a Pastors’ School and have had their lives and ministries transformed.

In addition to that, the First Baptist Church Youth Conference draws the largest group of fundamental young people of any youth conference in the nation. Other of these groups have copied and have not attracted a fraction of the young people. Without any effort to organize, God has raised up this movement.

Let me make several observations.

  1. Groups one and two are very much alike. The American Baptist Fundamen-talists and the Protestant Fundamentalists are very similar to each other.
  1. Group two provides most of the schools. Consider the schools which came from group one. Cedarville, Maranatha, and Pillsbury are schools that came from the group that came from the American Baptists. Now, consider the schools that came from the Protestant fundamentalists such as Wheaton, Moody, Pensacola, and Bob Jones University. That is the group that has been educating our Baptist preachers. I have nothing against a plumber, a cabinet maker, a lawyer, an accountant, or a doctor being trained by those schools, but I think a Baptist preacher ought to go to a Baptist school. That is why so many Baptist preachers do not know Baptist doctrines. Group three has allowed group two to train their preachers, and group two has trained them to believe in the invisible church. Group three is not the same as it used to be because we have gone to group two to get our training for our preachers.

I have some very dear friends in groups one and two. I am not criticizing them. I am merely giving you the history of the fundamentalist movement.

Consider the schools in group three. Baptist Bible College was probably the best when it started. When Tennessee Temple came along, it was probably the best. Today, Hyles-Anderson College is known to be the best school for training Bap-tist preachers. I thank God for the new Baptist colleges which are coming on the scene. Dr. Bob Gray has one in Longview, Texas. Dr. Jim Vineyard has one in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I am glad for these other Baptist colleges because I believe that group three must train its own.

  1. Another thing that has hurt group three is that group two has basically pro-vided all of the literature. When you provide somebody literature, you have a tremendous influence on them. The AWANA Clubs are an example of this. These were good clubs which came from group two. They ought to be used in group two churches, but we have put them in our group three churches. The AWANAS came from churches that were very formal and less evangelistic.

Most of the Christian school books come from Pensacola and Bob Jones. They are good books. There is nothing wrong with them. I am just simply showing you that the Protestant fundamentalists have provided most of the literature for the Southern Baptist fundamentalists, yet the Southern Baptist fundamentalists are the ones that have been red-hot. Why is that the case? Because the guy that is redhot does not want to take time to write a commentary. Most of the literature being used in the group three churches is being provided by the people in group two. We simply are not providing our own.

  1. There has always been an unseen wail that we have not allowed to divide us. Those of us in group three have not said much about the more formal services of group one and group two. But, in recent days, groups one and two have begun attacking group three. As a result, those of us in group three are going to need to defend those things which we believe to be important. We must defend altar calls. We must defend the old-time religion, because groups one and two are basically going back to their origin of formal worship services. In order to preserve what we have had through these years those of us in group three are going to have to stand for what we have had. They are shooting at us, and we have no recourse but to defend our position.

What about the new evangelicals? They are the soft part of each of the three groups. They are compromising part of all three groups. The GARB has deterio-rated some. The deteriorated crowd are new evangelicals. The CBA has deterio-rated some. The deteriorated portion are the new evangelicals. The Southern Baptists fundamentalists have deteriorated some, and they have some new evangelicals.

When a church in group three calls a pastor from group one, there is a catastro-phe ahead. As long as we stay apart, we can get along. I happen to think that we are as smart as they are. We have become such a melting pot that the average church does not realize that there is a difference. There are some good men in group one, but let them be good in their own group. They are in their element. There are some good men in group two, but they will teach our people that the local church is one church and the invisible church is another. They also will have their formal worship services. I am not against group two, but let them stay in group two. Let us continue to be group three. I am not going to spend my life fighting groups one and two because I admire them in some ways. I will keep admiring them as long as they do not try to influence group three, because group three is the hope of the nation.

Biblical Separation In The Last Days

Dr. Mike Johnston

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Corinthians 6:17).

The Book of Jude warns of an influx of end times apostates and Fundamental-ism has risen to deal with them. Far too many of the most popular preachers on television today are teaching things Jude not only warned about, but Jesus, Paul, and Peter: But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not (2 Peter 2:1-3). While much of contemporary preaching tickles the ears, the content of it is also blinding the eyes to a very sinister agenda.

I discovered some time ago that the mystery of iniquity Paul warned about (2 Thess. 2:7) includes a conspiracy of men disguised as ministers of righteousness (2 Cor.  11:15) that are leading the church through the occult and into universal Satan worship (Rev. 12-13). Satan the master deceiver (Rev. 20:10)) quietly began to initiate this by waging war against Christians on two basic battle fronts:

First was the formidable Scriptural front where he continues to coyly confuse people about which Bible is really the trusted Word of God. Since most Chris-tians believe what others tell them, they’ve never studied this issue themselves. This willing ignorance has become a marvelous breeding ground for corrupt Bible versions based on heretical Alexandrian texts with evil Romanist influ-ences.   While thousands of words were removed from the original manuscripts by the heretic Origen- and changes in translated words never intended by the Holy Spirit- including replacing the word Lucifer with Morning Star (Isa. 14:12) which depicts the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 22:16), few have noticed or com-plained which only adds to the confusion by reinforcing the serpent’s question: yea, hath God said? (Genesis 3:1; see also Psalm 119:89).

The second front of attack from Satan is spiritual and attributes blasphemy to the Holy Spirit through a fallacious Latter Rain signs and wonders movement with William Branham occult overtones. The fact is, these gatherings are noth-ing more than carnivals of chaos, consisting of falling, flipping, flopping, bel-lowing, barking, and other uncomely manifestations that frankly give churches the appearance of asylums for the insane rather than houses of worship. Since it is the spirits of devils, working miracles (Rev. 16:14), those who believe they are being led of the spirit are being led into the waiting arms of Lucifer himself. My dear friend, it is in light of these few examples drawn from a cesspool of embarrassing examples we believe Bible centered Christians must distance themselves from: Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Co-rinthians 6:17).


Definition of Separation

We will define Biblical separation as “the ardent refusal of a Bible believing Christian to comingle, cooperate, or compromise with individuals, churches, organizations, or groups holding to philosophies, practices, and teachings deemed to be heretical.” And while separation is a doctrine clearly taught in the Bible,  it has been scoffed at, schemed against, and skewed by the very scoun-drels it is designed to protect us from.

Today Fundamentalists and others who expose these misfits are often labeled the real troublemakers for daring to mention the Biblical mandate to try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world (1 John 4:1). Still, the Apostle Paul’s words to Pastor Timothy are as clear today as they were almost two thousand years ago when they were written: If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing . . . from such withdraw thyself (ex-cerpted from 1 Timothy 6:3-5).

Mandate for Separation

For thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to be thine inheritance (1 Kings 8:53). Israel’s separation from evil gave them their distinction as a nation unto the Lord. God covenanted to give Canaan to the Jews because it was a beautiful and bountiful land that- along with the people- would be devoted to Him. However, it was then occupied by Canaanite tres-passers that were wicked beyond words and needed displacement. They prac-ticed idolatry, child sacrifice, occult worship, bestiality, and sodomy as ritual acts of worship. Five hundred years before Moses and the Exodus, God singled out two cities to judge as a warning to all who would follow them in their filthy perverted lifestyles: Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire (Jude 1:7).

Notwithstanding, after 400 years in Egypt and 40 years of circling the moun-tain, by the time Israel was to take possession of the Promised Land, it had be-come completely overrun with sodomites. Therefore, in order to keep them from influencing and thus infecting His people, God told Moses to separate the people by physically driving the perverts from the land (1491 BC): They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee (Exodus 23:33). However, Israel paid little attention to God’s warnings which corrupted her spiritual life, cost her national identity, and brought about her captivity (2 Kings 17).

Today we find ourselves in the throes of apostasy for at least three reasons: (1) a lack of knowledge, (2) a lack discernment, (3) a lack of desire to confront the problem. Frankly, many of the weird winds blowing through God’s house today would be abruptly halted if we’d simply begin to employ the testing method pre-scribed by John: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world . . . Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error (1 John 4:1, 6).

Summary of Separation

The Old Scofield     teaches separation simply and clearly:

(1) Separation in Scripture is twofold: “from” whatever is contrary to the mind of God; and “unto” God Himself. The underlying principle is that in a moral universe it is impossible for God to fully bless and use His children who are in compromise or complicity with evil. The unequal yoke is anything which unites a child of God and an unbeliever in a common purpose. (Deu_22:10).

(2) Separation from evil implies (a) separation in desire, motive, and act, from the world, in the ethically bad sense of this present world-system. (b) separation from believers, especially false teachers, who are “vessels unto dishonour”. (2Ti_2:20); (2Ti_2:21); (2Jo_1:9-11).

(3) Separation is not from contact with evil in the world or the church, but from complicity with and conformity to. (Joh_17:15); (2Co_6:14-18); (Gal_6:1).

(4) The reward of separation is the full manifestation of the divine father-hood, (2Co_6:17); (2Co_6:18), unhindered communion and worship, (Heb_13:13-15), and fruitful service, (2Ti_2:21), as world-conformity involves the loss of these, though not of salvation. Here, as in all else, Christ is the mod-el. He was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners”, (Heb_7:26), and yet in such contact with them for their salvation that the Pharisees, who illustrate the mechanical and ascetic conception of separation (See Scofield “Matthew 3:7”) , judged Him as having lost His Nazarite character. Luke 7:39 Cf; 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 ; 10:27.

Scripture teaches us the following as it relates to apostates:

Separate from them: (2 Corinthians 6:14-17) Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with un-righteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?  (15)  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?  (16)  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  (17)  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

Expect them: (2 Peter 2:1-3) But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.  (2)  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.  (3)  And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

Try them: (1 John 4:1) Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Watch for and warn about them: (Acts 20:28-30) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.  (29)  For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.  (30)  Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Mark them and avoid them: (Romans 16:17) Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Recognize them: (Matthew 24:4-5) And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.  (5)  For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many (see Matt. 7:13-23; 24:4, 24).

Withdraw from them: (2 Thessalonians 3:6) Now we command you, breth-ren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Have no company with them: (2 Thessalonians 3:14) And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

Contending for the Faith

My friend, as we contemplate the growing apostasy and all who are willing to sacrifice doctrinal purity for ecumenical unity, let us meditate on Jude’s message which seems more relevant to us now than at any other time in church history: Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3).

Until Jesus returns, I’m going to continue contending. Let me know if you’ll join me!


POB 177 – Battle Creek, MI 49016-0177 – (269) 282-9381 – PmiMinistries.com

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a reply (vulgarity and viciousness will not be posted)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: